- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 30, 2008, 01:06 AMQuoteFalse Positives with "Suspicious" Thresholds.
Polygraph screening protocols that can identify a large fraction of serious security violators can be expected to incorrectly implicate at least hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of innocent employees for each spy or other serious security violator correctly identified.
NAS Report (page 218)
N.P.C.,
You probably already know this, but If a person fails a preemployment polygraph, there is NO follow up investigtation to confirm whether he really was lying or telling the truth. The application is tossed, and the applicant starts searching for answers.
Posted by nopolycop
- Apr 30, 2008, 12:32 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Apr 29, 2008, 06:14 PMbut I know they are fairly low percentage rates with myself and many of the examiners I speak with.
Sackett
Come on, give me a number. What is the percentage rate?
Posted by sackett
- Apr 29, 2008, 06:14 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Apr 29, 2008, 03:49 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Apr 29, 2008, 10:05 AM
We DO NOT agree they are as frequent as you would like your readers to believe.
Sackett
So, how frequent are false positives and false negatives?
n.p.c./TC
what? You don't know? I thought you both had a better understanding of polygraph than that of a lowly examiner, such as myself...
Well, to fill you in, I don't know any official statistics because I haven't conducted the research, but I know they are fairly low percentage rates with myself and many of the examiners I speak with.
How do we know? Because the outcome of investigations, further personnel review, admissions and confessions support my statement. You have what? A little research conducted in a controlled environment and even that indicating relative low percentage numbers which are then blown out of proportion here, in order to make the necessity of this board more relevant???
Your point is weak and baseless. Have a nice day.
Sackett
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 29, 2008, 04:17 PMQuoteSo, how frequent are false positives and false negatives?
With regard to preemployment tests, and according to the NAS report, frequent enough to justify NOT having the test!
But that would require
Let the record show, however, that there have been some on Capitol Hill who have tried to do the right thing. In fact, the NAS report was requested by Congress, I believe. Sen Deconcini (R-NM) admonished congress on his way out of the senate for not acting on the report.
TC
Posted by nopolycop
- Apr 29, 2008, 03:49 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Apr 29, 2008, 10:05 AM
We DO NOT agree they are as frequent as you would like your readers to believe.
Sackett
So, how frequent are false positives and false negatives?
Posted by sackett
- Apr 29, 2008, 10:05 AMJim, what polygraphers evidently do not to care about is the plight of those whom they wrongly brand as liars, or whom they falsely accuse of using countermeasures. I don't think any polygraph examiner wants to make false accusations against innocent persons. But given polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings, it's inevitably going to happen--and more frequently than polygraphers care to acknowledge.
George,
I do not find that all examiners are careless in whom they accuse or suspect of using CM's or being falsely suspected of deception. We (generally) do care about the results of every examination. The problem is, like most tests involving human beings, the risk of false results is greatly outweighed by the accuracy and utility of the test. We, as examiners admit there are false positives and negatives within our profession. We DO NOT agree they are as frequent as you would like your readers to believe.
I think that if most polygraph examiners took a candid and critical look at what it is they are doing, they could not in good conscience continue in this line of work.
I think you are wrong and are repeatedly proven as such when claiming anyone who reads your book can easily beat the examiner.
So instead, they delude themselves about it: they dismiss the National Academy of Sciences as a bunch of know-nothing eggheads, they attribute bad motives to polygraph critics, and they avoid critical thinking and the asking of troubling questions about what it is they do for a living.
No-one said the NAS was prepared and written by "know nothing egg heads", though I like your terminology. Many of us simply dispute the intent and agenda behind the selected readings and research used in the paper.
Lethe exhibits a deeper understanding of polygraphy than any practitioner of this fraudulent profession.
You are certainly entitled to your evaluative opinion.
What you're referring to is the fact that we no longer suggest contraction of the anal sphincter muscle as a countermeasure, in view of the increasing use of pneumatic or, more commonly in recent years, piezo-electric seat pads used in an attempt to detect and deter such countermeasures. While there are no scientific studies regarding the effectiveness of any of such these devices for the detection of countermeasures, it seems plausible that they might work, and given the ready availability of other countermeasure techniques that clearly cannot be detected by such seat pads, it seems prudent to use them, instead.
I have said many times here, CM's DO NOT beat the test, they beat the examiner. If an examiner is trained in detecting CM's and stays on top of what you and the others teach, they are relatively easy to catch. If, like I have also said, and which applies to many examiners, they remain complacent; they will be beaten.
...In peer-reviewed studies by Honts and others, half of test subjects were able to fool the polygraph after a maximum of only 30 minutes of instruction. The countermeasures taught (including tongue-biting and mentally counting backward by 7s timely with the asking of the control/comparison questions) were similar to those outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Citations and abstracts for these studies are provided in the bibliography of TLBTLD.
I am addressing readers of this board using what you teach on their own and employing CM's and beating the examiner; NOT, what a researcher can teach and instruct a novice in how to provide enhanced physiology in order to produce false readings. There is a big difference between the two, and this research did not address whether the examiner was able to detect what they were doing in regards to CM's, only their effect on the test itself.
It should not surprise you that those who have been falsely accused of deception based on the pseudoscientific quackery that you practice for a living might respond with sarcasm when polygraphers pontificate about such matters as honesty and integrity.
George, how do you know what his ground truth was? You accept everyone's tale of woe at face value as it supports your agenda; and without any proof or support.
You say this is a "very slanted board?!" How about PolygraphPlace.com, where you serve as a moderator, and where polygraph critics such as myself are not permitted to post?!
Polygrahplace.com was never and has never presented itself as an open board for anyone to post their opinions and statements about polygraph. It IS a place where someone with an honest question about polygraph can get an honest answer from examiners without receiving an opinionated diatribe, like as experienced here.
Of course each individual should make up his or her own mind for him- or herself. And they should do so upon full consideration of the evidence. That's why the AntiPolygraph.org message board, unlike your one, is uncensored. We don't fear debate. We welcome it.
George, lets be honest. There is no debate here, there is only attacks on pro-polygraph supporters and then milk and cookies and the sining of Kumbaya for the so-called anti folks.
It seems that some polygraphers are sensitive to countermeasures to the point of seeing them where they don't exist.
Most examiners are sensitive to CM's. Many are hyper-sensitive. I agree. Most of this has to do with training. Some are comfortable with their knowledge. Some are paranoid and may very well see them where they don't exists. This is an individual issue and no-one can control that.
Sackett
George,
I do not find that all examiners are careless in whom they accuse or suspect of using CM's or being falsely suspected of deception. We (generally) do care about the results of every examination. The problem is, like most tests involving human beings, the risk of false results is greatly outweighed by the accuracy and utility of the test. We, as examiners admit there are false positives and negatives within our profession. We DO NOT agree they are as frequent as you would like your readers to believe.
I think that if most polygraph examiners took a candid and critical look at what it is they are doing, they could not in good conscience continue in this line of work.
I think you are wrong and are repeatedly proven as such when claiming anyone who reads your book can easily beat the examiner.
So instead, they delude themselves about it: they dismiss the National Academy of Sciences as a bunch of know-nothing eggheads, they attribute bad motives to polygraph critics, and they avoid critical thinking and the asking of troubling questions about what it is they do for a living.
No-one said the NAS was prepared and written by "know nothing egg heads", though I like your terminology. Many of us simply dispute the intent and agenda behind the selected readings and research used in the paper.
Lethe exhibits a deeper understanding of polygraphy than any practitioner of this fraudulent profession.
You are certainly entitled to your evaluative opinion.
What you're referring to is the fact that we no longer suggest contraction of the anal sphincter muscle as a countermeasure, in view of the increasing use of pneumatic or, more commonly in recent years, piezo-electric seat pads used in an attempt to detect and deter such countermeasures. While there are no scientific studies regarding the effectiveness of any of such these devices for the detection of countermeasures, it seems plausible that they might work, and given the ready availability of other countermeasure techniques that clearly cannot be detected by such seat pads, it seems prudent to use them, instead.
I have said many times here, CM's DO NOT beat the test, they beat the examiner. If an examiner is trained in detecting CM's and stays on top of what you and the others teach, they are relatively easy to catch. If, like I have also said, and which applies to many examiners, they remain complacent; they will be beaten.
...In peer-reviewed studies by Honts and others, half of test subjects were able to fool the polygraph after a maximum of only 30 minutes of instruction. The countermeasures taught (including tongue-biting and mentally counting backward by 7s timely with the asking of the control/comparison questions) were similar to those outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Citations and abstracts for these studies are provided in the bibliography of TLBTLD.
I am addressing readers of this board using what you teach on their own and employing CM's and beating the examiner; NOT, what a researcher can teach and instruct a novice in how to provide enhanced physiology in order to produce false readings. There is a big difference between the two, and this research did not address whether the examiner was able to detect what they were doing in regards to CM's, only their effect on the test itself.
It should not surprise you that those who have been falsely accused of deception based on the pseudoscientific quackery that you practice for a living might respond with sarcasm when polygraphers pontificate about such matters as honesty and integrity.
George, how do you know what his ground truth was? You accept everyone's tale of woe at face value as it supports your agenda; and without any proof or support.
You say this is a "very slanted board?!" How about PolygraphPlace.com, where you serve as a moderator, and where polygraph critics such as myself are not permitted to post?!
Polygrahplace.com was never and has never presented itself as an open board for anyone to post their opinions and statements about polygraph. It IS a place where someone with an honest question about polygraph can get an honest answer from examiners without receiving an opinionated diatribe, like as experienced here.
Of course each individual should make up his or her own mind for him- or herself. And they should do so upon full consideration of the evidence. That's why the AntiPolygraph.org message board, unlike your one, is uncensored. We don't fear debate. We welcome it.
George, lets be honest. There is no debate here, there is only attacks on pro-polygraph supporters and then milk and cookies and the sining of Kumbaya for the so-called anti folks.
It seems that some polygraphers are sensitive to countermeasures to the point of seeing them where they don't exist.
Most examiners are sensitive to CM's. Many are hyper-sensitive. I agree. Most of this has to do with training. Some are comfortable with their knowledge. Some are paranoid and may very well see them where they don't exists. This is an individual issue and no-one can control that.
Sackett
Posted by sackett
- Apr 29, 2008, 09:36 AMQuote from: Ohio9 on Apr 28, 2008, 09:59 PMNotice how our resident polygrapher spends most of the above post attacking the board and it's members, rather than constructively responding to Ohio99's post.
TC
Ms Cullen,
if you would take notice that I try to respond to as many "points" or opinions as possible (made by your folks). I spend my time trying to answer yours and other's statements in an effort to avoind being called non-responsive. Make up your mind! If I don't respond you accuse me of avoidance, when I do respond you accuse me of "spending most of my time" attacking posters...
Sackett
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 29, 2008, 08:47 AMQuote from: Ohio9 on Apr 29, 2008, 08:39 AMGeorge
Is it Lethe's accusation that we are infantilizing our children that shows his deep understanding of our profession, or is it his suggestion that we should be put down like dogs?
His understanding of polygraphy is deeper than that of polygraph practitioners because he understands that it has no scientific basis.
Posted by pailryder
- Apr 29, 2008, 08:39 AMGeorge
Is it Lethe's accusation that we are infantilizing our children that shows his deep understanding of our profession, or is it his suggestion that we should be put down like dogs?
Is it Lethe's accusation that we are infantilizing our children that shows his deep understanding of our profession, or is it his suggestion that we should be put down like dogs?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 29, 2008, 04:11 AMQuoteIt should not surprise you that those who have been falsely accused of deception based on the pseudoscientific quackery that you practice for a living might respond with sarcasm when polygraphers pontificate about such matters as honesty and integrity.
Especially when the person being tested held a TS/SCI for 20 years, passing BI updates every five years.
I guess I must have been a "security risk" all those years! They should have polygraphed me sooner!
TC
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 29, 2008, 01:51 AMQuote from: Ohio9 on Apr 28, 2008, 03:22 PMOhio9,
regardless of what they say on this board, examiner's DO NOT care who gets hired. They do not make the hiring decision and have no(for the most part) vested interest in who gets the job. They are simply looking for those that can report information, like on the pre-employment process, then test for truthfulness.
People here make it seem that we take pleasure in keeping people out. I am gleefully happy with those who are truthful and pass, rather than fail. I want people to get the job they want, but they will have to be truthful to do so. (Now, be forwarned, my above "I do not care" statement will again be taken out of context as if I "do not care"; period! Not accurately applied to the context in which I made the statement. But, ignorance does begat ignorance...) "See Sackett doesn't care, Sackett doesn't care..."
Jim, what polygraphers evidently do not to care about is the plight of those whom they wrongly brand as liars, or whom they falsely accuse of using countermeasures. I don't think any polygraph examiner wants to make false accusations against innocent persons. But given polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings, it's inevitably going to happen--and more frequently than polygraphers care to acknowledge.
I think that if most polygraph examiners took a candid and critical look at what it is they are doing, they could not in good conscience continue in this line of work. So instead, they delude themselves about it: they dismiss the National Academy of Sciences as a bunch of know-nothing eggheads, they attribute bad motives to polygraph critics, and they avoid critical thinking and the asking of troubling questions about what it is they do for a living.
QuoteLethe has a bad habit of assuming he knows what examiners care about or feel; all, because it suits his warped observations of polygraph. Truly a sadly misguided individual...
Lethe exhibits a deeper understanding of polygraphy than any practitioner of this fraudulent profession.
QuoteGeorge will tell you that we, as examiner's have no proven ability to detect countermeasures, all the while not idetifiying any ability for the readers of his book to use them effectively, then when we are able to identify countermeasurse effectively has to modify his book to avoid those areas which may come back to haunt them.
What you're referring to is the fact that we no longer suggest contraction of the anal sphincter muscle as a countermeasure, in view of the increasing use of pneumatic or, more commonly in recent years, piezo-electric seat pads used in an attempt to detect and deter such countermeasures. While there are no scientific studies regarding the effectiveness of any of such these devices for the detection of countermeasures, it seems plausible that they might work, and given the ready availability of other countermeasure techniques that clearly cannot be detected by such seat pads, it seems prudent to use them, instead.
QuoteHow many readers have successfully employed countermeasures and "beat the examiner" to get what they want? Don't know? NO EXAMINEE HAS EVER PROVEN THE ABILITY TO USE OR EMPLOY COUNTERMEASURES SUCCESSFULLY, AS TAUGHT IN HIS BOOK.
Not so. In peer-reviewed studies by Honts and others, half of test subjects were able to fool the polygraph after a maximum of only 30 minutes of instruction. The countermeasures taught (including tongue-biting and mentally counting backward by 7s timely with the asking of the control/comparison questions) were similar to those outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Citations and abstracts for these studies are provided in the bibliography of TLBTLD.
QuoteCullen, on the other hand is a simple minded angry man who has taken it upon himself to sarcastically attack polygraph whenever the opportunity presents itself. His comments assist polygraph, more than hurt.
It should not surprise you that those who have been falsely accused of deception based on the pseudoscientific quackery that you practice for a living might respond with sarcasm when polygraphers pontificate about such matters as honesty and integrity.
QuoteOhio9, you are reading a very slanted board. Take all information put here and consider it from the point of origin (to include mine), then make up you own mind.
You say this is a "very slanted board?!" How about PolygraphPlace.com, where you serve as a moderator, and where polygraph critics such as myself are not permitted to post?!
Of course each individual should make up his or her own mind for him- or herself. And they should do so upon full consideration of the evidence. That's why the AntiPolygraph.org message board, unlike your one, is uncensored. We don't fear debate. We welcome it.
QuoteMany examiners are sensitive to countermeasures not for any other reason than that they interfere with the process and prevent us from doing our job accurately and for the examinee in the chair, at the time. That job is simply to find the truth of the matter, nothing more.
It seems that some polygraphers are sensitive to countermeasures to the point of seeing them where they don't exist.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 28, 2008, 09:59 PMNotice how our resident polygrapher spends most of the above post attacking the board and it's members, rather than constructively responding to Ohio99's post.
TC
TC
Posted by sackett
- Apr 28, 2008, 03:22 PMOhio9,
regardless of what they say on this board, examiner's DO NOT care who gets hired. They do not make the hiring decision and have no(for the most part) vested interest in who gets the job. They are simply looking for those that can report information, like on the pre-employment process, then test for truthfulness.
People here make it seem that we take pleasure in keeping people out. I am gleefully happy with those who are truthful and pass, rather than fail. I want people to get the job they want, but they will have to be truthful to do so. (Now, be forwarned, my above "I do not care" statement will again be taken out of context as if I "do not care"; period! Not accurately applied to the context in which I made the statement. But, ignorance does begat ignorance...) "See Sackett doesn't care, Sackett doesn't care..."
Lethe has a bad habit of assuming he knows what examiners care about or feel; all, because it suits his warped observations of polygraph. Truly a sadly misguided individual...
George will tell you that we, as examiner's have no proven ability to detect countermeasures, all the while not idetifiying any ability for the readers of his book to use them effectively, then when we are able to identify countermeasurse effectively has to modify his book to avoid those areas which may come back to haunt them. How many readers have successfully employed countermeasures and "beat the examiner" to get what they want? Don't know? NO EXAMINEE HAS EVER PROVEN THE ABILITY TO USE OR EMPLOY COUNTERMEASURES SUCCESSFULLY, AS TAUGHT IN HIS BOOK.
Cullen, on the other hand is a simple minded angry man who has taken it upon himself to sarcastically attack polygraph whenever the opportunity presents itself. His comments assist polygraph, more than hurt.
Ohio9, you are reading a very slanted board. Take all information put here and consider it from the point of origin (to include mine), then make up you own mind.
Many examiners are sensitive to countermeasures not for any other reason than that they interfere with the process and prevent us from doing our job accurately and for the examinee in the chair, at the time. That job is simply to find the truth of the matter, nothing more.
Sackett
(OK, anti folks, chum is in the water.... bring it on!)
regardless of what they say on this board, examiner's DO NOT care who gets hired. They do not make the hiring decision and have no(for the most part) vested interest in who gets the job. They are simply looking for those that can report information, like on the pre-employment process, then test for truthfulness.
People here make it seem that we take pleasure in keeping people out. I am gleefully happy with those who are truthful and pass, rather than fail. I want people to get the job they want, but they will have to be truthful to do so. (Now, be forwarned, my above "I do not care" statement will again be taken out of context as if I "do not care"; period! Not accurately applied to the context in which I made the statement. But, ignorance does begat ignorance...) "See Sackett doesn't care, Sackett doesn't care..."
Lethe has a bad habit of assuming he knows what examiners care about or feel; all, because it suits his warped observations of polygraph. Truly a sadly misguided individual...
George will tell you that we, as examiner's have no proven ability to detect countermeasures, all the while not idetifiying any ability for the readers of his book to use them effectively, then when we are able to identify countermeasurse effectively has to modify his book to avoid those areas which may come back to haunt them. How many readers have successfully employed countermeasures and "beat the examiner" to get what they want? Don't know? NO EXAMINEE HAS EVER PROVEN THE ABILITY TO USE OR EMPLOY COUNTERMEASURES SUCCESSFULLY, AS TAUGHT IN HIS BOOK.
Cullen, on the other hand is a simple minded angry man who has taken it upon himself to sarcastically attack polygraph whenever the opportunity presents itself. His comments assist polygraph, more than hurt.
Ohio9, you are reading a very slanted board. Take all information put here and consider it from the point of origin (to include mine), then make up you own mind.
Many examiners are sensitive to countermeasures not for any other reason than that they interfere with the process and prevent us from doing our job accurately and for the examinee in the chair, at the time. That job is simply to find the truth of the matter, nothing more.
Sackett
(OK, anti folks, chum is in the water.... bring it on!)
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 25, 2008, 02:07 PMOhio88,
Okay, sorry!
Sounds like the polygrapher wanted to fail you either way.
It would have been much easier for him IF you had admitted to using CMs.
TC
Okay, sorry!
Sounds like the polygrapher wanted to fail you either way.
It would have been much easier for him IF you had admitted to using CMs.
TC
Posted by Ohio9
- Apr 25, 2008, 07:27 AMQuote from: Ohio9 on Apr 24, 2008, 10:08 PMQuoteHe went on to say that if I just confessed to using countermeasures, he would note that in his report and there was a chance I could still get hired.
He was lying. He had NO INTENTION of passing you if you admitted to using countermeasures. And that is how is turned out.
The test is a con job, and their goal is to get you to admit to something you have not done.
Interrogators coerce false confessions out of people all the time. It's even easier for polygraphers, because, unlike some detective who coerces a false confession out of some innocent guy, with the polygraph there is NO follow up or requirement for evidence to back up the confession.
You should have called his bluff. "Look, I told you repeatedly I haven't use CM, and don't even know what that is. Either pass or not. Are we done here then?"
T. M., you don't seem to have read my initial post correctly. I never admitted using countermeasures. Not once. And I still "failed" the test anyway.
Quote from: Ohio9 on Apr 24, 2008, 10:08 PMQuoteHe went on to say that if I just confessed to using countermeasures, he would note that in his report and there was a chance I could still get hired.QuoteIn my case, it seems the only reason I didn't pass was because of an accusation of using countermeasures.
NO NO NO! Understand this! You failed because you ADMITTED to using CM!
Sheesh now you're starting to sound like the polygrapher. I already said I never admitted using countermeasures. Not once. Not even after he assured me that admitting countermeasures was the only way I would have a chance to get hired.
I have no regrets about my decition to stay honest and deny using countermeasures to the very end, but unfortunantly it wasn't enough to convince the polygrapher and I got kicked out all the same.